A group of researchers interested in developing and applying complex system ecosystem approaches for describing and moving toward sustainability have been working with a particular heuristic for directing inquiry. Primarily the work of James Kay, this heuristic (fondly referred to as the 'diamond diagram') has morphed through various permutations due to discussions among, and applications by, students and colleagues. The most recent permutations, including a recent version published in Futures, can be found on James' website.
Those of us close to this work recognize the ongoing collaborative process involved in describing and evaluating this heuristic. Here, I present some suggestions to promote dialogue. This particular illustration is a somewhat abbreviated version (i.e. not all of the descriptions are included). In addition, this version will have more discussions lying behind it. While you may not find many links at this point, they will emerge... If you have suggestions, or discussion to link in, please let Beth know...

The adaptations suggested here, arise from some concerns I believe are not adequately distinguished, emphasized, or addressed in other versions:

1. Clarifying the is-ought distinction.
2. Ensuring that attention is given to the process of defining the 'ought.'
3. Ensuring that the 'eco'system description incorporates more than bio-physical aspects.
4. Encouraging reflexivity.
5. Emphasizing the recursive nature of the inquiry process.

While the suggestions described here reflect my own continuing, underlying concerns and themes, their consideration has been crystallized through many discussions, especially with the complex-systems and post normal science discussion group at University of Waterloo convened by James Kay. The impetus for articulation can be attributed to the beginning of exploration into a description of the Grand River Watershed, by some members of this group, led by George Francis.

the is, the ought, and their determination In any planning-related exercise, there is a distinction that requires critical attention: the distinction between what is, and what should be. Considerations about the latter must be based on evaluation, leading to such questions as: Who's values? What criteria? Who decides? These are normative issues and cannot be based only on an understanding of what is. Although the distinction may be arbitrary to some degree (what is will be coloured by beliefs about what should be, norms and future-oriented decisions will be influenced by what currently exists) recognizing the differences is critical.
To emphasize both distinction and process, the two upper boxes and the first 'diamond' have been re-organized to fit the is (left), the ought (diamond) and the process (right). As indicated, factors and process relevant to each aspect are different.

Describing what is has traditionally been the purview of science. Some approaches (the one described here as an example) also attempt to consider other types of knowledge, cultural values, and interpretation.

Describing what is wanted requires normative political process. This incorporates (either implicitly or explicitly) ethical questions such as: What should we do? What criteria should we use to evaluate possibilities? What 'others' should be given consideration? These, in turn, lead to political questions: How do we make decisions? How should we? Who should be included in making these decisions? What inequities (regarding power and opportunity, for example) exist?

Coping with these issues and concerns fits into 'Develop an Issues Framework.' I suggest that this framework does not lead to a description of social, etc. systems, but rather focuses on developing a legitimate, equitable process that is used to develop visions and make choices.

beyond the bio-physical The complex situations in which this inquiry heuristic tends to be applied involve an interconnected mixture of system types and scales. My sense is that we tend to shove all the socio-cultural questions and concerns to the upper right-hand corner of the diagram. As well as lumping the is and the ought together, this leads to a 'system description' based primarily on the biophysical. Given the complexity of the situations, such a description is rarely adequate, generating false differentiations between the many different system types present in any situation. The 'system-description' box has been extended to include many different system types.

reflexivity: questioning assumptions Regardless of who we are and what process we apply, we each carry a range of assumptions that will influence any inquiry. Since we cannot avoid such assumptions, it seems important that we at least be aware of them. To encourage such awareness, I have added a notation to each 'box' in the diagram.

recursivity: feeding-back While this diagram is typically presented with descriptions that emphasize the need for continually feeding new information back into the process of inquiry, and while it indicates the need for "ongoing adaptive management," the diagram itself is decidedly linear. By including a medley of arrows, the need for such recursion is emphasized...

As a final comment, I believe these alterations make the heuristic somewhat more generic. In particular, by evading some 'systems' language (especially in the left-hand box), the potential for using alternative means of describing reality are not excluded...